View Full Version : Willie Pep considered greater than Sandy Saddler...


bonafuwa
01-27-2005, 06:37 AM
...., why? Considering Saddler knocked him out twice. Is it just a case of styles making fights? Did Saddler just have Pep's number, or is there more to it. I see Pep's name on a lot of all time p4p lists, but Saddler never shows up.

J !
01-27-2005, 07:18 AM
yeah interesting point made there, I think a lot of it has to with the pre and post crash willie pep. Dont forge the guy wasnt supposed to even walk again let alone box after the air crash! He actually had one leg substantially shorter than the other and you can imagine for a defensive master this was some obstacle to over come this was in 1947 he still managed to beat fellow all time great saddler with his handicap in 1950.

And many other fighters.

Saddler for what its worth was a murderous puncher but had no where near the skills of pep, he was however peps nemisis to an extent. (bit like frazier was Ali's)

The other reason that Saddler often is overlooked is that he had half the fights Pep did, still a mightily impressive 145-16-2 (103 kos!!!!) vs peps record of 230-11-1 (63 by ko).
So the records and ko percentage themselves tell a story its brawler vs boxer!

Pep is still alive well into his 80s now, suffering a little forom alzheimers a believe but generrally still fairly sharp, I love this quote by the great man on his life

"My two great weaknesses were slow horses and fast women".

Legend.

For my money probaly the best two featherweights ever to draw breath.
1. Pep
2. Saddler
3. Salvador Sanchez
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Azumah Nelson.

hope this is of interest to you and helps answer the question posed :cool: :cool: .

realtim
01-27-2005, 08:14 AM
Saddler was a bit of a dirty fighter aswell, they both were, them guys were in wars. Yeah the crash wouldnt have helped Pep much but he was a tough SOB. So was Saddler but Saddler needed Peps name on his record in a way.

J !
01-27-2005, 08:26 AM
yeah mate thats when they used to really fight, reading that pep was fighting every eleven days at some points of his career.

realtim
01-27-2005, 08:36 AM
And yet these modern day monsters of boxers would eat them alive with there modern training techniques and super nutrition. Yeah right.
130pounds today was the same as it was in the 50's. They fought hard and often against the best opposition out there.
There 2 great fighters and deserved to be talked about in the same breath.

J !
01-27-2005, 08:38 AM
thats why its so difficult to compare, however what i can say is that if they had the benefits of todays training techniqes they would make most of our modern day guys look rather silly.

realtim
01-27-2005, 08:56 AM
What modern day training is there that wasnt around back then. You have got it the wrong way around take some of these modern day fighters and put them in the past and they would have got found out b4 they got to the top ten rankings. There are a few exceptions today, Hopkins trains like they used to, he is never out of shape or baloons up between fights. But they kept in remarkable shape by fighting often every 2 weeks fighting 30 times a year or watever.

J !
01-27-2005, 09:33 AM
i dunno the nutritional side of modern day fighters but point taken, its all far more managed now than it used to be, more mechanical, Johnny Nelson is another one who does it old school.
The other thing that was common in those days was the fact they used to train up in weight if anything not down. So making the weight was never an issue.

jayrichardse
01-30-2005, 06:46 PM
hell no he was not

lmnorw
02-26-2005, 01:08 PM
actually they fought 4 times i believe and saddler knocked him out 3 times.just look at their records.sure pep had alot more wins he fought alot more.but to be great you have to do more than one thing well.pep couldnt punch and i believe his chin wasnt that great either.you may say look at how many times he won he must of had a great chin.no his deffense was so great he was rarely hit hard to the chin.pep was great.but saddler was better and like i said beat him 3 out of the 4 times they fought

wmute
02-26-2005, 03:35 PM
actually they fought 4 times i believe and saddler knocked him out 3 times.just look at their records.sure pep had alot more wins he fought alot more.but to be great you have to do more than one thing well.pep couldnt punch and i believe his chin wasnt that great either.you may say look at how many times he won he must of had a great chin.no his deffense was so great he was rarely hit hard to the chin.pep was great.but saddler was better and like i said beat him 3 out of the 4 times they fought

did you read the second post in the thread?

well go and read it

maybe you can get some relevant info you seem to forego

and if you look at their records you also might want to notice that saddler is 4 years year younger and naturally bigger and had 40 less fights when they met, so it's not like they met prime for prime and pound for pound. Also on the record of pep there is a 6month layoff, guess why?

these are the reasons why even if the record says pep 1 saddler 3, pep is ranked higher.

do you rate dlh higher than chavez?
tarver higher than jones?
and so on

lmnorw
02-27-2005, 05:15 PM
lol kid the point is he beat him.thats the bottem line.they fought and saddler kicked his ass..how much more can one boxer do to prove he is better than another boxer?pep couldnt punch period just look at the records so he would of never been able to keep saddler off of him so he would always be ko'd.saddler is better than pep period

Kid Achilles
02-27-2005, 07:55 PM
Andrew Golota kicked the **** out of Bowe both times they fought so I guess he will go down in history as the better fighter right?

Rahman and Lewis are 1-1 so they must be equals right?

Buster Douglas kicked the crap out of Tyson so he's obviously the better all around HW, huh?

Yeah, that logic works real well dip****. Trying to compare two boxers solely on the few fights they had against one another and ignoring what they accomplished in their careers makes a lot of sense dosen't it?

Shaolin Bushido
02-27-2005, 08:42 PM
...., why? Considering Saddler knocked him out twice. Is it just a case of styles making fights? Did Saddler just have Pep's number, or is there more to it. I see Pep's name on a lot of all time p4p lists, but Saddler never shows up.
Pep continued his career after a terrible crash and still did well despite not matching his earlier pep(couldn't help it). Sadler wasn't pretty but he enjoyed the reach height and power of a Hearns so he was just a beast in there. Often happens that folks choose the guy they perceive as the "little guy" and who displays the savvy heart and success despite all odds.

I think I'd rate Sadler ahead of him but I've seen convincing arguments for Pep.

Shaolin Bushido
02-27-2005, 08:43 PM
did you read the second post in the thread?


and so onoops, I didn't til too late. Carry on.

lmnorw
02-28-2005, 02:48 PM
lol skill wise douglas is better than tyson and golata had better skills than bowe.so my logic holds up ball licker.and like i said ass licker i dont care how much older pep was the man couldnt punch a damn..so he could never keep pep off of him.ohh and when did lewis become something special?since he beat a washed up tyson and had to run like a ***** to beat a old shot holyfield?yeah a old holyfield was great wasnt he?i know he would knock out a prime foreman ali and frazier in the same night..lewis is so great he is the only heavyweight champion to get knocked out 2 times by one punch.wait ali got knocked out 5 times by one punch and foreman got knocked out so many times i cant even count them..yeah you sure know your boxing dont you cum swallower?so gay that even after i asked you to stop replying to my post you still do it..damn i am so cool i got gay white boys on aol sweating me

Kid Achilles
02-28-2005, 04:26 PM
You never had any logic to begin with, so no it doesn't "hold up" you silly little ****wad. On top of that your recent reponse doesn't even make any sense. Whether or not you think Lewis was a great fighter, the fact remains he was a hell of a lot better than Rahman regardless if they are 1-1. You can't just rely on head to head matchups to rate fighters because for one, styles make fights, and two, there are other factors that you're not taking into consideration. Bowe was not at peak condition when he fought Golota. He let himself balloon up to 300 lbs and paid for it when he had to drop the weight quick. Lewis was out of shape when he got KO'ed by Rahman. He had been off partying with movie stars instead of training.

Tyson had much more talent and skill than Douglas but Douglas was inspired by the death of his mother, fought the fight of his life and Tyson was not prepared for the challenges an inspired Buster presented. He was training to beat a big fat nobody. He had been dropped by Greg friggin Page in training camp. That gives you an idea of the state of preparation he was in at the time. That fact that James beat Mike once doesn't make Douglas the better fighter. Even if they rematched again and Douglas somehow found a way to win once more, it still wouldn't. I don't care if they fought even a third time and Douglas beat him yet again. Mike Tyson was still a better fighter overall than Buster Duoglas. He had a better resume and exhibited greater talent and yes, greater skill as well. Your argument is flawed, be a man and face it.

Then again, a little sniveling ***** like yourself who starts **** on an internet forum can't be expected to know much about manhood.

cple
02-28-2005, 05:26 PM
All of their meetings took place after Pep was in a fear fatal accident, which left doctors doubting his ability to walk, let alone fight. You HAVE to take this into account. Pep was nowhere near his peak. Hell, i can probably beat Ali in a fight right now. Doesn't mean i can beat him in his prime.

Still, Pep was able to fend off Saddler in their rematch, which many regard as the best featherweight bout of all-time. True, Saddler did stop Pep three out of four times, and i don't for a second doubt that he would give a prime Pep a hard time. However, Pep has shown he can compete and beat Saddler, even at less than peak condition. Which leads me to believe that he can do much better in his prime.

wmute
02-28-2005, 06:04 PM
All of their meetings took place after Pep was in a fear fatal accident, which left doctors doubting his ability to walk, let alone fight. You HAVE to take this into account. Pep was nowhere near his peak. Hell, i can probably beat Ali in a fight right now. Doesn't mean i can beat him in his prime.

Still, Pep was able to fend off Saddler in their rematch, which many regard as the best featherweight bout of all-time. True, Saddler did stop Pep three out of four times, and i don't for a second doubt that he would give a prime Pep a hard time. However, Pep has shown he can compete and beat Saddler, even at less than peak condition. Which leads me to believe that he can do much better in his prime.

don't waste your time and good use of logic, we all agree, except for one person who doesnt want to (or cant) read other people posts.

J !
03-23-2005, 01:58 PM
lol skill wise douglas is better than tyson and golata had better skills than bowe.so my logic holds up ball licker.and like i said ass licker i dont care how much older pep was the man couldnt punch a damn..so he could never keep pep off of him.ohh and when did lewis become something special?since he beat a washed up tyson and had to run like a ***** to beat a old shot holyfield?yeah a old holyfield was great wasnt he?i know he would knock out a prime foreman ali and frazier in the same night..lewis is so great he is the only heavyweight champion to get knocked out 2 times by one punch.wait ali got knocked out 5 times by one punch and foreman got knocked out so many times i cant even count them..yeah you sure know your boxing dont you cum swallower?so gay that even after i asked you to stop replying to my post you still do it..damn i am so cool i got gay white boys on aol sweating me

SORRY MATE BUT YOU KNOW ****ING NOTHING.

SO BY YOUR LOGIC WHOMEVER BEAT SADDLER IS THE BEST OF ALL TIME?
NONSENSE. OTHERWISE WE WOULD BE DISCUSING CHICO ROSE OR HUMBERTO SIERRA.

but we arent and they arent the best, Pep is.
Now if you wish to be adult and stop being a dick about it you may learn something.
PEP IS UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED AS THE BEST FEATHER OF ALL TIME AND IN FACT TOP 5 P4P. (in fact some say the best)

by who have forgotten more about boxing than you will ever know.


edit thought id add my top ten feathers
1. Willie Pep
2. Sandy Saddler
3. Salvadore Sanchez
4. Azumah Nelson
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Eusebio Pedroza
7. Abe Attell
8. Alexis Arguello
10.marco Barerra
10.eric Morales

Cant Split Em / Mab their legends are entwined..

Prior to his first fight with Saddler, Pep was 137-1. :rolleyes:

****in 137-1.

u go figure . :eek:
Also i dont like racist homophobic comments so watch your mouth.

now if you dont mind ive got some fights to go to and report on. :boxing:

Rockin'
03-23-2005, 03:42 PM
wheres kid chocolate on that list?..........Rockin'

LuKahnLi
03-23-2005, 05:31 PM
What must not be ignored in this debate is the fact that Saddler fought Pep near the end of the latter's career. Pep's fights against Saddler came AFTER the plane crash in which he suffered serious injuries.

J !
03-24-2005, 04:40 AM
wheres kid chocolate on that list?..........Rockin'


obviously not there. where would have him mate?

J !
03-30-2005, 06:41 AM
right no resposne so i'll offer you a reason or 2: Firstly while being very talented and geting up for the big fights Chocolate struggled sometimes with no namers.
He may deserve a place on the top ten though these things are subjective in my view he is fringe and if it was a top 15 definitely would but the fact he never held the featheweight champ of the world losing to battling Battlino counts against him.

yes i know he won the super feather (or junior lightweight title as it was then) but this title was not recognised at the time and was in comparison against inferior opposition.

trust that answers your question.

smokeyjackson
04-19-2005, 08:32 AM
i think Pep was the greater fighter, Willie Pep was the first fighter i ever heard about, my Grandfather used to tell me about his fights when i was a kid and that what got me interested in boxing, he used to love telling me about the time the great Willie Pep won a round without even throwing a punch( maybe a myth but that was his favourite story ) Saddler was great too but ive got to pick Willie Pep or my Grandfather would turn in his grave.

dmar
06-27-2005, 07:15 PM
yeah interesting point made there, I think a lot of it has to with the pre and post crash willie pep. Dont forge the guy wasnt supposed to even walk again let alone box after the air crash! He actually had one leg substantially shorter than the other and you can imagine for a defensive master this was some obstacle to over come this was in 1947 he still managed to beat fellow all time great saddler with his handicap in 1950.

And many other fighters.

Saddler for what its worth was a murderous puncher but had no where near the skills of pep, he was however peps nemisis to an extent. (bit like frazier was Ali's)

The other reason that Saddler often is overlooked is that he had half the fights Pep did, still a mightily impressive 145-16-2 (103 kos!!!!) vs peps record of 230-11-1 (63 by ko).
So the records and ko percentage themselves tell a story its brawler vs boxer!

Pep is still alive well into his 80s now, suffering a little forom alzheimers a believe but generrally still fairly sharp, I love this quote by the great man on his life

"My two great weaknesses were slow horses and fast women".

Legend.

For my money probaly the best two featherweights ever to draw breath.
1. Pep
2. Saddler
3. Salvador Sanchez
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Azumah Nelson.

hope this is of interest to you and helps answer the question posed :cool: :cool: .
excellent post.i totaly agree..and your top 4 is on the money..if i had to have a poll of the most underated fighters of all time..saddler would head the list followed by charles.

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 06:03 PM
pep wasnt in his prime when he lost to saddler
dempsey wasnt in his prime when he lost to tunney
frazier wasnt in his prime when he lost foreman
tyson wasnt in his prime when he lost to douglas
chavez wasnt in his prime when he lost to whitaker
liston wasnt in his prime when he lost to ali

Damn they are never in thier primes, right. The fans of this sport are a joke, how many excuses can you guys make. Sandy Saddler beat him, nuff said. Now shut the **** up.

Kid Achilles
01-27-2007, 06:08 PM
Buster douglas beat Tyson, nuff said.

Evander holyfield beat Tyson twice, nuff said.

Lennox Lewis beat Tyson, nuff said.

Danny Williams beat Tyson, nuff said.

Kevin McBride beat Tyson, nuff said.

Tyson was in his prime for all these fights so shut the **** up.

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 06:13 PM
Buster douglas beat Tyson, nuff said.

Evander holyfield beat Tyson twice, nuff said.

Lennox Lewis beat Tyson, nuff said.

Danny Williams beat Tyson, nuff said.

Kevin McBride beat Tyson, nuff said.

If the plane crash bothered willie pep so much, how the **** did he win the featherweight belt again, was the division that ****ty back then. Better yet he was beating up everybody till he met saddler, sandy has his number whether you like it or not. Three times out of 4 ****in fights, nuff said.

The only way pep can win is by a narrow decision, otherwise he gets knocked the **** out by sandy saddler.

Kid Achilles
01-27-2007, 06:18 PM
If being past his prime effected him so much, how did Tyson beat guys like Ruddock and Bruno? Did the division suck that much?

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 06:22 PM
If being past his prime effected him so much, how did Tyson beat guys like Ruddock and Bruno? Did the division suck that much?

tyson was a ranked fighter up until the lennox lewis fight. Were u not alive back in 2002, everyone was saying if rahman can beat lewis, tyson would smoke him.

Do you really think that the outcome of saddler vs pep would have been different if it happened 3 years earlier. Saddler is the best opponent he ever fought and he came up short.

Kid Achilles
01-27-2007, 06:43 PM
The point I made zipped over your head. Well over your head. Pep won the title after his prime because he remained an exceptional fighter, a pound for pound great. Even after he'd lost some of his athletic ability from the crash and his injuries, he was an insanely skillful boxer. Tyson likewise (though not to the same degree) was still head and shoulders over his competition in ability so even though he lost his skills, he was too much for many of the top fighters of his time.

Do you actually think I believe Tyson was in his prime for the losses I listed? No, I was making fun of you.

My point is this, and I make it a lot: you don't know jack **** about boxing history. You question those who assert that Dempsey lost to Tunney because he was over the hill, Liston to Ali, Chavez to Whitaker, etc. etc. when in fact to most rational people this is as plain as night and day.

Most great boxers suffer their worst and most embarrassing losses when they're past their best days and in unfavorable circumstances. From Achilles falling to the limp wristed Paris (due to Apollo's will) to Sullivan succumbing to his alcoholism and losing to Corbett right on to a shot Tyson taking a beating at the hands of Lewis, it's a fate that has befallen warriors since the history of time, in life and in literature. You call it an excuse because you're bitter and like to start troubler and get attention for yourself but the rest of us realize it's a historic trend.

You probably do as well, but like I said, you enjoy pissing people off. You're a part time troll.

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 06:51 PM
You would never go up to saddler's grave and tell him his wins over pep are meaningless. i dare ya!

Pep got in a plane crash at the beginning of 1947. So if his career from 1947-1959 is useless and means nothing, he is nowhere near the top 10 p4p of all times. His accomplishments from 1942-1946 are not that much, 75% of his big wins came after the plane crash nuff said, baby achilles. You must be an italian.

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 06:57 PM
The point I made zipped over your head. Well over your head. Pep won the title after his prime because he remained an exceptional fighter, a pound for pound great. Even after he'd lost some of his athletic ability from the crash and his injuries, he was an insanely skillful boxer. Tyson likewise (though not to the same degree) was still head and shoulders over his competition in ability so even though he lost his skills, he was too much for many of the top fighters of his time.

Do you actually think I believe Tyson was in his prime for the losses I listed? No, I was making fun of you.

My point is this, and I make it a lot: you don't know jack **** about boxing history. You question those who assert that Dempsey lost to Tunney because he was over the hill, Liston to Ali, Chavez to Whitaker, etc. etc. when in fact to most rational people this is as plain as night and day.

Most great boxers suffer their worst and most embarrassing losses when they're past their best days and in unfavorable circumstances. From Achilles falling to the limp wristed Paris (due to Apollo's will) to Sullivan succumbing to his alcoholism and losing to Corbett right on to a shot Tyson taking a beating at the hands of Lewis, it's a fate that has befallen warriors since the history of time, in life and in literature. You call it an excuse because you're bitter and like to start troubler and get attention for yourself but the rest of us realize it's a historic trend.

You probably do as well, but like I said, you enjoy pissing people off. You're a part time troll.

dude sir jose told me everything about you, ur a clueless idiot. There is a reason you always run away when he comes here to post.

jack dempsey ****in sucks ass, he wouldnt even beat vitali klitchko.

Let me guess kid, billy conn is better than michael spinks, right moron.

excuse me if i dont care about the 1870's or 1910's, lol. Who the **** actually gives a **** about an era where guys were on top cuz coloured people were blacklisted.

LondonRingRules
01-31-2007, 06:24 AM
Pep got in a plane crash at the beginning of 1947. So if his career from 1947-1959 is useless and means nothing, he is nowhere near the top 10 p4p of all times. His accomplishments from 1942-1946 are not that much, 75% of his big wins came after the plane crash

** Pep was 108-1-1 and feather champ before the crash. That's HOF worthy if his career stopped, which almost happened since he was paralyzed with a broken back.

75% of you seems to be mush with fuzzy edges. The premise of the post was ridiculous to begin with. Pep is a great no matter how much anyone likes Saddler and viceversa.

bill1234
03-03-2007, 10:54 PM
...., why? Considering Saddler knocked him out twice. Is it just a case of styles making fights? Did Saddler just have Pep's number, or is there more to it. I see Pep's name on a lot of all time p4p lists, but Saddler never shows up.


Well 1, Pep was past it. 2. It is stylers. and 3. look how dirty Saddler was fighting.